Gilford to have meeting on Short Term Rentals Monday

[Cal-to-NH]

Going to be interesting to see where this goes.

I hope some of the tax revenue in Gilford has made it to the Town Attorney's office. There will be a lot of money spent on outside lawyers when the same lawsuits hit Gilford that are now hitting Conway. It will be interesting to see in the end exactly how much Conway ends up spending to defend these suits, and whether in the end they think it was worth it - even if they win....

[John Mercier]

If they win, they will counter sue for costs associated with the action.
They may have already filed it at the open, as we have seen when other local municipalities get sued.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Cal-to-NH

Going to be interesting to see where this goes.

I hope some of the tax revenue in Gilford has made it to the Town Attorney's office. There will be a lot of money spent on outside lawyers when the same lawsuits hit Gilford that are now hitting Conway. It will be interesting to see in the end exactly how much Conway ends up spending to defend these suits, and whether in the end they think it was worth it - even if they win....

On an issue that affects fundamental quality of life for a significant number of people, as the paper describes this, I think the town has to step up to the plate and do what they think is right, regardless of pushback from litigators. Otherwise, there's not much point in having a town government.

[Cal-to-NH]

Good luck and I wish you well on your journey for sure...

I couldn't imagine ever putting my home on Air BNB or the like, but I would never begrudge those that do it to defer their costs...

And a boon to the Air BNB folks in the 7 other towns that allow it. I can recite the 3 others that may follow if it works in Gilford. They can afford the lawsuits as well. They won't get their money back either. The other 4 towns will never go for it. And for those of you who need the revenue to survive the high taxes of living here, who knows you may still have a place?

So all-in-all I think it will land where it lands...

[Cal-to-NH]

Actually, it may all be a moot point anyway - hot off the presses!

There seems to be a Compromise State of NH Bill (SB 249) with support from both Republican and Democratic Legislators, Business owners and Real Estate representatives.

The Bill proposes Banning any Bans on short term Rentals, but instead replaces Bans with common sense controls. I just knew there was a common-sense solution to this problem that can work for everyone - instead of you win and I lose results.... I love compromise!

Thankfully there are still smart people in the Legislature...

https://www.conwaydailysun.com/opini...erm%20rentals.

The Legislature seems to think it's a slam-dunk, and it will take effect June of 2022. It will grandfather Towns that have already banned STRs. So if the people and representatives want to act, I bet you can still get it if you act fast.

[TiltonBB]

The way I read that legislation it just preserves the right of people to rent their property and prohibits municipalities from stopping that.

It also says "A municipality MAY adopt an ordinance........" Nothing requires the municipality to do so.

Other than that I don't see anything adding additional restrictions. On it's face, it looks like it just preserves rights that municipalities already have.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

The way I read that legislation it just preserves the right of people to rent their property and prohibits municipalities from stopping that.

It also says "A municipality MAY adopt an ordinance........" Nothing requires the municipality to do so.

Other than that I don't see anything adding additional restrictions. On it's face, it looks like it just preserves rights that municipalities already have.

It is SO irritating when people read the bill before forming an opinion. Bravo Tilton for taking the extra step.

[John Mercier]

If you own property... the municipality will get its money back.
I don't think any municipality is credibly concerned with a second home owner... especially one that does not have residency in that community.

When voters can't afford a primary home, or rent, that sort of takes precedent.
The elected official that ignores it quickly becomes the focus of their angst.

[Cal-to-NH]

Interesting that only 3 of the 7 bullets on that list are all that's read by some people. But I guess on the other side the last 4 bullets will only be read by the.

Remember a compromise is that each side gives something up. But I guess for some folks a compromise means getting what you want?

Oh well, good luck tonight. I think the Selectmen should listen very carefully to the wishes of its citizens, either way.

[John Mercier]

If you have been in NH for a while, you determine that a compromise is not what they come up with.

They drag their feet until it reaches a fever pitch... for which there is no easy fix... and then they tip-toe and have to keep coming back to the table for more.

The other bullet points don't matter, because our local municipalities are not in the same situation. We don't have a demand problem at our businesses. Covid is having little to no effect on us.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Cal-to-NH

Interesting that only 3 of the 7 bullets on that list are all that's read by some people. But I guess on the other side the last 4 bullets will only be read by the.

Remember a compromise is that each side gives something up. But I guess for some folks a compromise means getting what you want?

Oh well, good luck tonight. I think the Selectmen should listen very carefully to the wishes of its citizens, either way.

Unless you are asserting that the last 4 bullets give the towns rights that they do not already have, then this is not a compromise--the state is giving up nothing. Maybe you should just thank Tilton for his close reading?

[John Mercier]

The bill reminds me of the Campground M&R bill.
The Legislature thought it was a great idea... but they ran directly into the middle class, and that only lasted long enough to hit the books before legislators lost their seats and the bill was repealed.

When the market is truly looked at. If tourism businesses - service businesses - can not afford reasonably priced help... they go under. As each one goes under it puts pressure on the others to take up the customer demand until the price of labor inflates to the point that the tourists avoid the area.

Then the housing prices start to crash back down to earth.

[Cal-to-NH]

I love perspective!

It gives towns legislative rights they do not currently have (but it is true they could legislate it on their own). I guess if you look at it that way you are correct that the town gets nothing (that they couldn't do themselves)

Guess what? If allowed to look at the other side of the compromise, the homeowner also retains a right that they also currently have.

Instead of taking anyone's rights away, it preserves the rights of both parties. What a concept!

I know I know it doesn't have a winner and loser:

And you're welcome!

compromise
[ˈkämprəˌmīz]
NOUN
an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
"an ability to listen to two sides in a dispute, and devise a compromise acceptable to both" · [more]
synonyms:
agreement · understanding · settlement · terms · accommodation · [more]
VERB
settle a dispute by mutual concession.
"in the end we compromised and deferred the issue"
synonyms:
meet each other halfway · find the middle ground · come to terms · [more]
accept standards that are lower than is desirable.
"we were not prepared to compromise on safety"
synonyms:
change one's mind · give way · give in · yield · acquiesce · adapt · retract · do a U-turn · eat one's words · do an about-turn
bring into disrepute or danger by indiscreet, foolish, or reckless behavior.
"situations in which his troops could be compromised"

[Cal-to-NH]

Honestly,

If there is a win-win where everybody feels like they didn't get exactly what they wanted, but they can live with it, then it's the best thing to do.

If I am offending people by applauding an action to preserve everybody's rights instead of taking them away, then I sincerely apologize.

I would like to reiterate that the People of Gilford should get what the majority wants - whichever way it goes.

[John Mercier]

Actually the homeowner did not currently have the right.
We do not have the right do with our property as we want; that is what the purpose of zoning is... and why those properties are zoned residential.

If Conway, Meredith, Laconia, Gilford... etc wanted to, they could either rezone an area, or allow a zoning variance.

Like I stated, not the first time we've seen the cycle. It is a tourism problem that they never seem to overcome... always running hot then cold then hot again.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Actually the homeowner did not currently have the right.
We do not have the right do with our property as we want; that is what the purpose of zoning is... and why those properties are zoned residential.

If Conway, Meredith, Laconia, Gilford... etc wanted to, they could either rezone an area, or allow a zoning variance.

Like I stated, not the first time we've seen the cycle. It is a tourism problem that they never seem to overcome... always running hot then cold then hot again.

This is a great point. There is definitely some number of rentals per year that makes a property a business instead of the AirBnB marketing ploy of "sharing economy".

[John Mercier]

Actually for us it was always the area.
Laconia would be Lake Winnisquam - I think a couple exist in the Eastman Drive area, or Weirs Beach. Weirs Beach, I believe is largely already zoned resort/commercial in most of its area.

For Gilford, that would be Glendale and Gunstock - though probably not zoned that way as Gilford has dealt with zoning far less than Laconia.

These are tourist areas that the municipalities hoped would support hotel/motel operations.
Problem is, as an investor with that mindset, I would more likely go for a property that cost less capital than a hotel/motel to get started. Develop the property for the greatest return on capital... and if working well... buy into the next property as economy of scale would begin to take over.

The recent tourism report has the State hovering around $6 billion, most of that occurring in the summer months. So it does bode that the lakes would be a sizable factor along with the seacoast.

[StevenGilford]

There have been some really interesting discussions on this recently. The Senate Bill referenced above does one single thing: removes the prerogative of localities to decide what is best for them: ban or approve STRs. Instead STRs will be legitimized everywhere.

In Gilford there are 2 open questions:

1) Should STRs be allowed in residential zones

New Hampshire Municipal Association makes a strong case the in an area like Gilford, under current zoning, they are not allowed - https://www.nh.gov/osi/planning/reso...oryT_pOnYvpDl4

A close reading of Gilford zoning ordinances seems to conform to this reasoning.

However currently, in practice, STRs exist in Gilford and the town takes no action against them.

then

2) If STRs are allowed, should they be regulated?

Which is what the proposed ordinance would do.


This is creating a very confusing position where some people are advocating against the ordinance because they don't want their STRs regulated by the town, and other people are also advocating against the ordinance because they don't want STRs legitimized... quite a pickle!

[TiltonBB]

The short therm rental regulations proposed in Gilford will be studied further.

Any implementation will be at least one year away.

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...f7a80ef96.html

[Cal-to-NH]

Here is a draft of the STR ordinance: https://www.gilfordnh.org/file/2427/..._final_PDF.pdf

It looks very much like what the State of NH is trying to put in place state-wide.
Looks like that first inspection, septic system inspection, fire and safety issues, ability to remove rubbish, etc... put a pretty healthy burden on the permit applicant.

It also states explicitly that there are a number of infractions that will cause the permit to be revoked. The infractions seem reasonable as well.

I agree with Stevengilford. Some on this forum will read it and say this amounts to absolutely nothing (some already have!). Others will say if this is truly and competently enforced, that it should do the trick, and that's "Their read".